What is Christian Philosophy and for what purpose does it serve?

[Stephen3141]

Yeah we were talking about how we noth have brain damage but God has often used such people even with those worse in mind than reasonably sane people I mean he used a donkey once to speak.

But then he said this
I strongly feel that the mind is also where all your energy flows from, but more importantly your shield of protection, which in my view is also a shield of energy, that circles around your body, protecting you from negative spirits or unclean spirits.

It's kinda like our mother earth, in the middle is its core (similar to a mind its flows energy around its body) protecting its self from all sorts of energies that could destroy it, since we came from earth it would also make sense that we do share this common factor

What does this entry have to do with "Christian philosophy"? I don't see any connection.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Philosophy helps build a metaphysical vision of reality and how best to live in it.

Christian philosophy includes Christ as the central figure n that metaphysical vision.

 

[Stephen3141]

In the old Greek, philosophy simple meant the love of wisdom.

Although the Classical Greek philosophers were not Christians, they raise basic questions about all sorts of topics. And these topics, are important.

Historic Christians have often taken up these questions, from a Christian point of view.
There are traces of the Ancient Greek language of the philosophers, in the vocabulary that Jesus uses in the Gospels, as he teaches. The "good", the "perfect man", what it is to be "blessed" -- these are all topics that the Ancient Greek philosophers discussed.

The anti-intellectual Protestant denominations regularly try to categorize ALL philosophical discussion as vain philosophies. But this is a misunderstanding of the place of the mind, in thinking, and searching for truth. The Fundamentalist rejection of formal logic, also undercuts the critical Bible study skills, and substitutes an amateur, cultural Protestant concept of what it is to study the Bible.

Note that there are Protestant denominations that are not anti-intellectual, and embrace the life of the mind, and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. This was historically, the Evangelical approach.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... if I had understood what Christian Philosophy is so what is it exactly what the reason to study it and what purpose does it serve?

The phrase refers to a rag bag. So sort out what you might pick from it!

Fairly sound, personally christian philosophers (in my opinion) include Dallas Willard, Etienne Gilson, Esther Lighthouse Meek, Michael Polanyi, Edmund Husserl, but I expect there are more . . .

With a lot of effort and reading commentaries, one can eventually discern many agnostics who would support similar positions on various issues.

Many followers gained prominence by claiming the heritage of another sounder teacher but conflicting with it.

For example Hegel is not the new Kant.
Heidegger is not the new Husserl.
William James is not the new C S Peirce.
Plotinus is not the new Plato (Plato was an ironist for his own safety)

(Corner cutters and absolutists do the world harm.)

Roland Barthes, who was a sort of cultural semiotician, critiqued mechanised religion in his essay "Loyola".

I start with tertiary sources (encyclopaedias) to see who piques my curiosity, then resort to several
commentaries to gain a comparative perspective on commentators on each philosopher. Eventually I gain a comparative perspective between philosophers and how they collectively build up a bigger philosophy for me. It's very pick and mix and smorgasbord on an individual's part.

As I persist in belief in Christ and Holy Spirit I apply criterias of non-confliction with that. I think sound philosophy appeals to a wider range of people, if explained nicely enough.

What St Paul protested about was vain philosophy - sophistry, which Pharisees and Saducees are good at.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

...

There are so many talented Christian philosophers out there, right now, doing great work.

Here's a helpful article on the subject:

Philosophy and Christian Theology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

This is helpful. Thank you! Plantinga and Swinburne I found particularly illogical and egregious. Plantinga and Swinburne are beloved of power wielders from the pulpits.

J H Newman explained that belief is the fruit of assent to degrees of inference (on any subject). Christ, and philosophy, need more than flimsy "apologetism".

 

[public hermit]

Plantinga and Swinburne I found particularly illogical and egregious. Plantinga and Swinburne are beloved of power wielders from the pulpits

Plantinga and Swinborne are illogical and egregious in what way? Is there a particular argument you found to be sadly off or do you mean anything they say is illogical and egregious. Lol. I'm excited to hear examples whatever the case.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

You like to ask questions I like that. in particular what is reality that is a fun discussion.

We are on an existence wave. There would tend to be something rather than nothing. Time is subjective as well as objective. According to A N Whitehead (to me an inspiring agnostic) eternity is the backdrop against which possibilities are mapped. S J Gould (a claimed atheistic agnostic) was alert to the long tails of curves.

In my young day "creation" meant what turned up, same as "nature". Evolution which I intuited needs further thinking out (like everything), hardly meant anything different: what turned up; assumptions as well as tentative interim findings, need continual relative prioritising. The fad for "ismisms" as vehicle for power grabbing since the 1980s has ruined everything.

Science proceeds from the apparently how and takes small steps in the direction of what. Mathematics start with what and from there we can build up some how for it.

Keep us posted and we'll supply you with some gambits to bamboozle your acquaintance!

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Plantinga and Swinborne are illogical and egregioHs in what way? Is there a particular argument you found to be sadly off or do you mean anything they say is illogical and egregious. Lol. I'm excited to hear examples whatever the case.

1 - Swinburne on "homosexuality * as disability": lack of definitions, several fallacies. (I also thought there was a question mark over his motive on the occasion?) I also thought that in other works his grasp of Scripture and belief were lacking but I don't have examples to hand as I'm not seeking his material out.

2 - Plantinga: I've just discovered he did work I wasn't aware of. A sophisticated case (and I gave away books that I "didn't want") but I seem to recall he wasn't up to speed in cosmology, palaeology, hermeneutics, semiotics, theology, etc. leading him into fallacies. Not many people are into those things which is no excuse if one makes show of wading in in some "noble cause".

3 - As I don't know how to get a supervisor for my pipedream, a low cost distance self-designed certificate or diploma "curriculum" (nor an assistant, nor "study support") the state of my note taking and written work producing are not yet very useful. (Could readers pray about the latter points as I'd like to start a simple blog on general philosophy.)

4 - Have you been contributing to any other threads on logic ** , metaphysics, mathematics, phenomenology, semiotics, hermeneutics topics in recent days? (The index often doesn't show enough to judge which ones one may like to jump in on.)

{ * both sacred and secular discussion around this topic has been strongly shaped by recent church histories }
{ ** I believe in what I call big logic and not a Button / Walsh sort of version }

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1 - Swinburne on "homosexuality * as disability": lack of definitions, several fallacies. (I also thought there was a question mark over his motive on the occasion?) I also thought that in other works his grasp of Scripture and belief were lacking but I don't have examples to hand as I'm not seeking his material out.

2 - Plantinga: I've just discovered he did work I wasn't aware of. A sophisticated case (and I gave away books that I "didn't want") but I seem to recall he wasn't up to speed in cosmology, palaeology, hermeneutics, semiotics, theology, etc. leading him into fallacies. Not many people are into those things which is no excuse if one makes show of wading in in some "noble cause".

3 - As I don't know how to get a supervisor for my pipedream, a low cost distance self-designed certificate or diploma "curriculum" (nor an assistant, nor "study support") the state of my note taking and written work producing are not yet very useful. (Could readers pray about the latter points as I'd like to start a simple blog on general philosophy.)

4 - Have you been contributing to any other threads on logic ** , metaphysics, mathematics, phenomenology, semiotics, hermeneutics topics in recent days? (The index often doesn't show enough to judge which ones one may like to jump in on.)

{ * both sacred and secular discussion around this topic has been strongly shaped by recent church histories }
{ ** I believe in what I call big logic and not a Button / Walsh sort of version }

Good luck on getting any of those respective discussions off the ground very far in these forums. Most here have little idea about what consitutes a fuller scope of reasoning among "Christian Philosophers," ...... and the "best" part, is most don't care.

I care. In his own way, too, @public hermit cares since we both have degrees in Philosophy. But most here don't and won't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello I am agra man I came across this site and saw that it had this section on Christian Philosophy. To be honest I have heard of it but never really got into what it is so I am niave in this area. And a friend of mine well we got intoan argument because he was saying some really odd things calling it philosophy things about mother earth using the mind to sync to the spirit even going so far as to explain how mother earth has some kind of life energy that using the mind with the spirit creates an aura of protection and just odd stuff he said there was a marriage with the angels and the church before creation and that divorce was in heaven with us and them

I love talking with him about the things of God we have a blast but the things he was saying here well he didn't take to well to me warning him about all this stuff even though there was absolutely no evidence of what he said what so ever he just saw it as truth and saw me as being petty and attacking him.

I tried first before even confronting him to understand what he meant about it being philosophy he said it is basically adding to an already established thing. Ok for studying and research looking at things from a different perspective maybe I can be on board with that but to say it as fact though well I wasn't having that.

But I wondered if perhaps the argument could have gone different if I had understood what Christian Philosophy is so what is it exactly what the reason to study it and what purpose does it serve?

No, what your friend conceives about "Christian Philosophy" couldn't be further from the actuality of it.

Philosophy is a huge field, filled with many different pathways of investigation and viewpoints; what makes Christian Philosophy different from the usual environs of secular philosophy is that Christians apply philosophical tools to dig into their subjects (and hopefully) apply some critical thinking to varous topics and then, with some luck, tie their attempted clarifications back into their Christian faith, in some way.

 

[public hermit]

1 - Swinburne on "homosexuality * as disability": lack of definitions, several fallacies. (I also thought there was a question mark over his motive on the occasion?) I also thought that in other works his grasp of Scripture and belief were lacking but I don't have examples to hand as I'm not seeking his material out.

2 - Plantinga: I've just discovered he did work I wasn't aware of. A sophisticated case (and I gave away books that I "didn't want") but I seem to recall he wasn't up to speed in cosmology, palaeology, hermeneutics, semiotics, theology, etc. leading him into fallacies. Not many people are into those things which is no excuse if one makes show of wading in in some "noble cause".

3 - As I don't know how to get a supervisor for my pipedream, a low cost distance self-designed certificate or diploma "curriculum" (nor an assistant, nor "study support") the state of my note taking and written work producing are not yet very useful. (Could readers pray about the latter points as I'd like to start a simple blog on general philosophy.)

4 - Have you been contributing to any other threads on logic ** , metaphysics, mathematics, phenomenology, semiotics, hermeneutics topics in recent days? (The index often doesn't show enough to judge which ones one may like to jump in on.)

{ * both sacred and secular discussion around this topic has been strongly shaped by recent church histories }
{ ** I believe in what I call big logic and not a Button / Walsh sort of version }

1. I appreciate that Swinburne tries to understand Christian faith in a way commensurate with current scientific understandings.

2. Plantinga's work was very much present in my own academic training. I find aspects of Reformed epistemology interesting. I think his Warranted Christian Belief is classic, but it's underlying apologetic purpose, i.e., to show that Christian faith is not unreasonable, is not something I have much interest in, at this point.. His more general, epistemological framework of warrant and proper function is something I tend to embrace. It fits nicely with my own predilection for pragmatism.

3. I hope you can realize that desire. I often tell people who are interested in a philosophy degree to not do that. Get one that is marketable, and then create a self-study program. If one is disciplined, or if they just love philosophy and will read it even if the house is on fire, they can learn through reading, video, online classes, etc. There is so much good philosophy at your fingertips. I love philosophy and have learned way more on my own reading than when I was at university. Of course, a philosophy degree is a good degree and is a good transition degree, say for law school or whatever. But the chances of securing a terminal degree in philosophy and then finding work is not a good gamble right now.

4. I have not been. I'm pretty much an idiot wandering around here. I have some old threads more oriented toward those subjects. I wish they would reopen the philosophy section (assuming interesting philosophical discussions happened).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1. I appreciate that Swinburne tries to understand Christian faith in a way commensurate with current scientific understandings.

2. Plantinga's work was very much present in my own academic training. I find aspects of Reformed epistemology interesting. I think his Warranted Christian Belief is classic, but it's underlying apologetic purpose, i.e., to show that Christian faith is not unreasonable, is not something I have much interest in, at this point.. His more general, epistemological framework of warrant and proper function is something I tend to embrace. It fits nicely with my own predilection for pragmatism.

3. I hope you can realize that desire. I often tell people who are interested in a philosophy degree to not do that. Get one that is marketable, and then create a self-study program. If one is disciplined, or if they just love philosophy and will read it even if the house is on fire, they can learn through reading, video, online classes, etc. There is so much good philosophy at your fingertips. I love philosophy and have learned way more on my own reading than when I was at university. Of course, a philosophy degree is a good degree and is a good transition degree, say for law school or whatever. But the chances of securing a terminal degree in philosophy and then finding work is not a good gamble right now.

4. I have not been. I'm pretty much an idiot wandering around here. I have some old threads more oriented toward those subjects. I wish they would reopen the philosophy section (assuming interesting philosophical discussions happened).

You're not an idiot. Don't even play that card, PH!

 

[public hermit]

You're not an idiot. Don't even play that card, PH!

In lieu of a poll, I'll accept that.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

1. I appreciate ... discussions happened).

My degree in literature and languages which I struggled through, more lifetimes ago than I care to remember, was in fact a stepping stone in my career (specialised admin) but the problems now are that I refuse to delve into areas I suspect will be of no interest to me while neglecting ones I find more interesting, and steep fees. Also I think one ought to be able to design one's own short courses. The concept of degree is wrong altogether,

I know I have "study support needs". Also the stamina is plummeting daily.

Thanks for more background on the two I mentioned. Another hammer for me to hammer them both with - Swinburne short work in short order (I suspect).

It's shame the superstitious regard using the mind to enquire and infer as a luxury according to a warped form of puritanism. What with my ability profile inferring on information is the only way I survive daily.

Perhaps we should both start on-site blogs and invite comments from others. Does one have the discretion to delete or edit some comments on on-site blogs? I would need comments from some well enough informed and / or suitably imaginative members because my way of expressing myself or concepts isn't polished.

(Less likely this week than last due to worse health)

 

[FireDragon76]

The anti-intellectualism of some American Evangelicals is not reflective of the Jewish background of the Bible, which held intellectual pursuits in high esteem.

 

[Agra man]

The phrase refers to a rag bag. So sort out what you might pick from it!

Fairly sound, personally christian philosophers (in my opinion) include Dallas Willard, Etienne Gilson, Esther Lighthouse Meek, Michael Polanyi, Edmund Husserl, but I expect there are more . . .

With a lot of effort and reading commentaries, one can eventually discern many agnostics who would support similar positions on various issues.

Many followers gained prominence by claiming the heritage of another sounder teacher but conflicting with it.

For example Hegel is not the new Kant.
Heidegger is not the new Husserl.
William James is not the new C S Peirce.
Plotinus is not the new Plato (Plato was an ironist for his own safety)

(Corner cutters and absolutists do the world harm.)

Roland Barthes, who was a sort of cultural semiotician, critiqued mechanised religion in his essay "Loyola".

I start with tertiary sources (encyclopaedias) to see who piques my curiosity, then resort to several
commentaries to gain a comparative perspective on commentators on each philosopher. Eventually I gain a comparative perspective between philosophers and how they collectively build up a bigger philosophy for me. It's very pick and mix and smorgasbord on an individual's part.

As I persist in belief in Christ and Holy Spirit I apply criterias of non-confliction with that. I think sound philosophy appeals to a wider range of people, if explained nicely enough.

What St Paul protested about was vain philosophy - sophistry, which Pharisees and Saducees are good at.

Your the type I would love doing bible studies with.

 

[Agra man]

We are on an existence wave. There would tend to be something rather than nothing. Time is subjective as well as objective. According to A N Whitehead (to me an inspiring agnostic) eternity is the backdrop against which possibilities are mapped. S J Gould (a claimed atheistic agnostic) was alert to the long tails of curves.

In my young day "creation" meant what turned up, same as "nature". Evolution which I intuited needs further thinking out (like everything), hardly meant anything different: what turned up; assumptions as well as tentative interim findings, need continual relative prioritising. The fad for "ismisms" as vehicle for power grabbing since the 1980s has ruined everything.

Science proceeds from the apparently how and takes small steps in the direction of what. Mathematics start with what and from there we can build up some how for it.

Keep us posted and we'll supply you with some gambits to bamboozle your acquaintance!

I actually accidently ran across a video that I think explains everything. He spoke a lot about the consciousness and the mind and a video I came across basically mixes this stuff with God trying to seem legit but it's a trap for new believers or those who are a bit niave.

As it turns out he was saved about a year ago and I only recently learned this, he talks about hidden scripture but I came across yet another video about that and yeah it made perfect sense but the unerving uncomfortable sense you get from it just doesn't sit right.

He also seems to love being in the (spirit) but it seems that he doesn't discern some of the things he says brings joy to my heart as he appears to be growing but then sometimes out of nowhere he goes into these wierd things.

I have been protective over his walk and knowing now he is a new believer it worries me even more how the devils fingerprints are all over youtube and people like this are easy targets.

 

[Agra man]

No, what your friend conceives about "Christian Philosophy" couldn't be further from the actuality of it.

Philosophy is a huge field, filled with many different pathways of investigation and viewpoints; what makes Christian Philosophy different from the usual environs of secular philosophy is that Christians apply philosophical tools to dig into their subjects (and hopefully) apply some critical thinking to varous topics and then, with some luck, tie their attempted clarifications back into their Christian faith, in some way.

I suppose that makes sense. I am actually fascinated by science and the studies of how the body and mind works and I learned that God's name is actually encoded in our genetic code I can never remeber the name but it starts with an s I will have to try to where I found it but I also consider how it is like our bodies were designed to show our need for God.

We require a lot of water to stay hydrated even our skin will become dry and flacky if not hydrated but we have to constantly thirst but his living water though we would never thirst our bodies would be hydrated and glowing with health

We have to eat constantly to be fed but his word feeds us and makes us whole even if our bodies are starving and his wiord makes us whole it satisfies.

We take in and expell what is put in our mouths our bodies absorb the good nutuition and flushes out the extra or the bad.

Depending on what we take in affects our whole body so to does what we take in affect our being with God this is why it is wise to be cautous what you watch or listen to. if you stretch and loosing your body your relaxed and flexable as if God saying tkae a good stretch and just relax eith me.

So many more comparrisons could be made from that kind of thinking everything natural in some way or form speaks of him

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suppose that makes sense. I am actually fascinated by science and the studies of how the body and mind works and I learned that God's name is actually encoded in our genetic code I can never remeber the name but it starts with an s I will have to try to where I found it but I also consider how it is like our bodies were designed to show our need for God.

We require a lot of water to stay hydrated even our skin will become dry and flacky if not hydrated but we have to constantly thirst but his living water though we would never thirst our bodies would be hydrated and glowing with health

We have to eat constantly to be fed but his word feeds us and makes us whole even if our bodies are starving and his wiord makes us whole it satisfies.

We take in and expell what is put in our mouths our bodies absorb the good nutuition and flushes out the extra or the bad.

Depending on what we take in affects our whole body so to does what we take in affect our being with God this is why it is wise to be cautous what you watch or listen to. if you stretch and loosing your body your relaxed and flexable as if God saying tkae a good stretch and just relax eith me.

So many more comparrisons could be made from that kind of thinking everything natural in some way or form speaks of him

Sure. What you're sharing here could be said to reflect a form of Natural Theology, which some Christian Philosophers will conceptually investigate and evaluate even further. Some Christian philosophers will support it in more nuanced ways than theologians do; other Christian philosophers might offer a critical analysis of that same theology instead, but then give reasons for another way to think about the nature of our world and reality in relation to God's Handiwork.

 

[Agra man]

Sure. What you're sharing here could be said to reflect a form of Natural Theology, which some Christian Philosophers will conceptually investigate and evaluate even further. Some Christian philosophers will support it in more nuanced ways than theologians do; other Christian philosophers might offer a critical analysis of that same theology instead, but then give reasons for another way to think about the nature of our world and reality in relation to God's Handiwork.

Before my health got bad my mind worked better so while I have this studious knowledge hungry mindset I mainly have to rely on the spirit. I would not be able to contend with any bible scholar as my memory doesn't allow me to retain most of what I study but he brings things up like that and I just like to kind of ponder it and build upon it.

I think it is a good thing to study this subject at first I was not sure but you all have been so great and what I love to see is the precept upon precept if I could have met you guys earlier I would have been much better off it is surpriusingly hard to find people you can just discuss and learn and grow with most are not so well to discuss things.

This forum is amazing if it wasn't so hard for me to see I could be on here much more and I want to try because I go to at least five different forums all of them for the purpose of planting the seeds of the kingdom but at some point you always reach a realization these people just want to argue.